Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack wher
I asked specifically about elimination and you know that. Nations of millions of Bashkirs, Tatars, Chechens, Udmurts don't exist? There are 21 republics (nation states) within Russia, are their nations eliminated?
Is there more an effective elimination process then to actually deny the existence of a nation like Ukraine ?
That is what Putin believe and wrote about and still do .
Terrible Fox news, truly terrible
(i don't think it can be a mistake)
It's definitely a mistake. It's like I've been trying to tell everyone here, and it's verifiable, that most everyone in the mainstream who are giving you information about Ukraine and Russia have extremely think knowledge about Ukraine or Russia and are propagandists, not scholars or veteran diplomats or officials dealing with these countries. That's why most of what people are saying in here is categorically untrue, because it is state war propaganda produced in a very slipshod manner.
Sorry but what's a mistake? Putin did attend an Easter Orthodox midnight Mass.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/put...
Or am I misunderstanding here?
Sorry but what's a mistake? Putin did attend an Easter Orthodox midnight Mass.https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/put...Or am I misunderstanding here?
Red Arrow in the picture i posted, upper right corner they write "Kyiv, Russia" as the location instead of Ukraine
Red Arrow in the picture i posted, upper right corner they write "Kyiv, Russia" as the location instead of Ukraine
Lol sorry, was looking at the other arrow and seemed to be pointing toward Putin's name. That's pretty despicable from Fox, if it isn't a mistake, which I doubt, as he attended in Moscow.
Fox already getting a backlash over it.
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/cars/news/fox-...
__
Just at the same moment when Peskov talked about readiness for bilateral negotiations with Ukraine regarding the ban on strikes on civilian targets, Russia struck Zaporizhzhia with a guided bomb.
Residential building. 69-year-old woman died. 22 more wounded, among them four children.
At the same time, 12 "Shahed" drones hit Kharkiv. 7 wounded.
That's how their readiness looks like.
Well Zelensky has stated that the return of Crimea is a necessary condition for peace. In other words he thinks he has the support to keep this war going because Crimea will never be under Ukraine ever again. Where would this support be coming from? Is he so stupid as to think Europe is going to prolong it? I really don't know, but it's possible Trump has secretly agreed to draw this out further. Either way more Ukrainians are going to pointlessly die and more of Ukraine is going to be turned into rubble.
When you look at this from the bird's eye view of who lives, who dies, and who gets paid you read a disgusting chapter in American war profiteering.
Of course Russia could end this tomorrow by simply withdrawing.
Russia wasn't attacked, Ukraine was.
Don't you call me a Brit you...Liberal.😡
Honestly, coming from you I really didn't think it was sarcasm.
Yup exactly like Israel !
Invading neighbors to preemptively strike down your “ennemies” for defensive purpose am I right ?!!
+1
Proof is , I never saw victor excuse Israel once while he did Putin many times .
Or in better words , he is much more kinder and less vitriolic on Putin then israel ..
right but thats bc you support the Democrats and the contradictions between supporting genocide and acting righteous are hard to overcome.
Yup exactly like Israel !
Invading neighbors to preemptively strike down your “ennemies” for defensive purpose am I right ?!!
+1
Proof is , I never saw victor excuse Israel once while he did Putin many times .
Or in better words , he is much more kinder and less vitriolic on Putin then israel ..
you literally understood it as sarcasm in the post above. then you realized, ahah, I can attack a non Dem slurper with some bad faith bullshit.
heres the thing, in both cases I support a ceasefire and end to hostilities. in both cases, genocidal warmongering Dems want to continue the mass slaughter.
Color me curious here - if sarcasm, then you agree with the position that Russia is the at fault party in this entire problem yeah?
I'm curious though, if you still support the Administration (let me know if im wrong here too), how can you compartmentalize the manner they've dealt with the situation in a way that does not reveal or indicate a broader more general scope of either their ineptitude of intentional attempt to support the at-fault side by way of strong arming the victim and then attempting to extort natural resources as some kind of condition of assistance? Furthermore, the head of the party has continued to deny that the sky is blue regarding the character of Putin and his actions - in fact on record has done more to support and uplift than criticize?
I'm not asking this to arrive at some debate, I'm asking because I genuinely do not grasp how a very obvious and blatant example of what many can only see as incompetence or intention to support a despot in the destruction of another sovereign nation does not color the opinion of the rest of their policy/decisions.
A rather rushed analogy but its like: You catch someone lying about a subject matter in conversation. Later, they discuss about another topic and someone suggests they might be lying or demonstrating some kind of incompetence. However, in the analogy, you argue that the other person's ability to draw a proper conclusion about the situation is deficient or they are wrong or some form of support for the person you already caught lying. The equivocal response of continued support here would be to tell the other person they are wrong or misunderstanding of the situation even though you have absolute knowledge of their deception in other related matters.
But in the above example, isnt it more likely that they are lying about the 2nd topic as well given their predilection for deceit with the first? or wouldnt that at least color your understanding to some degree?
Drawing it back to the original point - i'm not saying a mistake or poorly handling a situation is indicative of absolute incompetence in all things, thats absurd. I'm saying its quite obvious the response to the ukraine situation at the very least demonstrates some wild inconsistencies in how we approach a situation between a clearly at-fault instigator and the victim. Usually, when you see someone do something unfair to another person, you dont blame the person who is the victim of said unfairness.
etc
If im wildly out of step here, i'd love to go through a sort of simplified dialogue regarding the problem itself, the global consensus view on who the aggressor is, and how this administration's response has in any way attempted to act in good faith on behalf of the victim.
What would end? Would NATO encroachment end? Would attacks on ethnic Russians inside Ukraine end? That's what Russia wants. I find that perfectly rational and I don't see why anyone wouldn't.
If Russia or some other coalition of hostile countries started taking over the Yucatan you would see me transform instantly into someone in favor of the U.S. using violence and I would volunteer to be a part of it. And if all of you didn't do the same you would be accurately called cowards. If you agree then I can't see how you can't fault Russia. If you see Russia's response as radical or you say that if the Warsaw PAct reconstituted, overthrew MExico's government and installed one favorable to them, and proceeded to train Mexico's army and set up military installations there you would be talking about "Mexico has a right to do whatever it wants to anybody it wants". I'd like to see if you had the balls to bring up Mexico's sovereignty in that scenario.
The War.
Would NATO encroachment end?
Any country can join whatver organisation they like. It's called self determination and Russia doesn't get to arbitrarily decide the self determination of other nations.
Would attacks on ethnic Russians inside Ukraine end?
Russia armed ethnic Russians as an excuse to go in in 2014.
That's what Russia wants.
Yeah and they want the same thing in Georgia, yeah? Those Georgians are at fault too. Russia wants a return to the glorious days of the Soviet Empire, minus the Soviet part. They're expansionist as the history shows, recent as well as retro.
I find that perfectly rational and I don't see why anyone wouldn't.
That's because you're actually not perfectly rational, you're a Putin apologist, meaning that actual rational people don't agree with you.
